delete_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the deletion is permanent, covers the entire project directory and all contents, and emphasizes that the confirm parameter must be True because the action is irreversible. This clearly discloses the destructive nature of the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and well-structured, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple destructive tool with two parameters and an output schema not displayed, the description covers the purpose, scope, and safety requirement adequately. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning behavior if the project does not exist, but the essential information for safe invocation is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: name identifies the project to delete, and confirm must be explicitly set to True. It adds meaning beyond the schema's types and default by explaining the safety purpose of confirm, which is essential for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool permanently deletes an entire project directory and everything in it, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_directory tool, so some ambiguity remains about when the project-level deletion should be chosen instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a critical usage requirement (confirm must be set to True) and makes clear the operation is irreversible, providing implied guidance that this tool should be used only when the entire project is to be removed. It does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when NOT to use this tool, so guidance is present but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.